The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Today the Houston city council will meet to consider a series of changes to Chapter 46 of the city code that would finally allow ridesharing services to legally operate. Though long overdue, the vote is a significant step forward for a city that earlier this year issued citations to Uber and Lyft drivers as part of a police sting operation.

But threats loom. Some council members bent on shielding the city’s entrenched taxi industry have loaded up the meeting agenda with regulation-laden amendments.

As is, the reform package would promote much-needed competition in the Houston transportation marketplace. But the amendments, if passed, would severely kneecap new entrants and only serve to protect existing taxi companies fighting tooth and nail to preserve the status quo.

An amendment pushed by council member Mike Laster would impose a government limit on the total number of drivers allowed per company. The amendment states:

"A transportation network company permit shall entitle the permittee (including all affiliates of permittee) to engage under written agreement with no more than 150 transportation network drivers to operate transportation network vehicles."

That means companies like Uber and Lyft would only be allowed to connect riders to a grand total of 150 drivers per company, whether or not the driver is actually working at the moment.

If Laster’s amendment passes, Houston will have the dubious distinction of being the only city in America with a cap on the number of rideshare drivers (Seattle briefly had such a provision in place but scuppered it last month.) How Laster came up with the 150 figure is anyone’s guess.

“Arbitrary caps on the numbers of drivers serve no one well except those who are already ‘in’ the system,” says Michael Quinn Sullivan, president of the free-market Empower Texans. He also notes the impact such a restriction would have on the employment picture in Houston, recently ranked Number 5 on Forbes’ Best Big Cities For Jobs: “These efforts similarly limit jobs, depriving men and women of employment opportunities forbidden to them by artificial caps or costly barriers to entry.”

Another troublesome amendment is being pushed by council member Michael Kubosh, who once compared Uber and Lyft drivers to mice: “You can go into their apps and look, and see them crawling around like little mice all over the city,” he said.

Kubosh’s amendment would force Uber and Lyft drivers – even those who drive a few hours a week to make ends meet – to register their personal vehicles as full time taxis and be subject to ad valorem taxes. His amendment reads:

“All Transportation Network Companies and Transportation Network Drivers shall render the transportation network vehicles to Harris County Appraisal District as commercial transportation vehicles to enable all applicable taxing districts to collect the same taxes as would be collected if such for hire vehicles were operating as taxicabs.”

As with the Laster amendment, this proposal would put a big, artificial damper on transportation options for riders. Sullivan calls the proposals “pathetic attempts to deprive residents and visitors alike of services meeting real market needs.”

The council convenes at 9:00 a.m. Central Time. By the end of the meeting, Houstonians may know if the reform package passed as is, clearing the way for Uber and Lyft, or if the entrenched taxi cartel has prevailed once again. Says Sullivan: “If the city proceeds with these crony-protection scams, the pain will be felt by residents needing a ride, visitors lacking a market-applauded convenience, and entrepreneurs looking to improve their lives.”

UPDATE: The Chapter 46 reform package passed, clearing the way for Uber and Lyft. The protectionist amendments described above both failed.